Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

    Hello everyone, and thanks for reading this opinion piece on IU basketball.

    First of all, a little background:

    I live very near Assembly Hall, and have been a big IU fan practically my entire life. I went to school there, grew up watching their games on television and in person, and have always rooted for the Hoosiers. I met Coach Knight when I was 8 years old, and maintained a relationship with him all the way thru high school, college, and then later in my professional life. Thru other ways in my own coaching experiences I've got to meet alot of other famous coaches and celebrities, such as John Cheney, Lon Kruger, John Thompson, Dick Vitale, Jim Boeheim, and many others.

    What my own coaching background, knowledge of the IU scene and culture, and my own experiences as a fan all give me is a really clear idea of what IU basketball has been, what it is now, and what it needs in the future.

    IU should be looking at the following criteria when picking their next coach, in my opinion:

    1. Has he proven he can win big over time?
    2. Will he represent the university with class, dignity and honor?
    3. Can he unite the fanbase by running his program the way the culture of Indiana fans want and expect?
    4. Can he win clean, with a spotless reputation for honesty and high academic standards?
    5. Can he recruit the best players in the state, and some of the premier players in the country to come play here?
    6. Can he win and survive in difficult circumstances, since likely IU will be facing some early problems no matter who is hired?

    I understand the early clamoring for a young coach, I really do. I would not be disappointed at all if we hired a Brownell from Wright State, a Sean Miller from Xavier, or if the rumors tonight in Bloomington are true and we hire Tony Bennett from Washington State. All those guys have clear appeal and I could and would be happy with any of them.

    But, and this is a big but, there is a better candidate out there, one who would clearly be head and shoulders above the rest, due to his outstanding, impeccable reputation and resume. That man is the same man I wrote Rick Greenspan about the last time the job was open, and the same man I myself confirmed the last time would have been likely to take the job if offered. That man is ex Stanford Coach Mike Montgomery. Here are my reasons for proclaiming Monty as the very best candidate:

    1. Montgomery has the experience necessary to win big under difficult circumstances. Coaching at Montana and Stanford (an extremely prestigious academic school) he compiled a record of 547-244 record. He has been to the final four, and has been named the James Naismith National Collegiate coach of the year. He was the Pac-10 coach of the year 4 different times. He won the John Wooden lifetime achievement in coaching award, which states as its criteria high character, coaching philosophy, and high academic achievements by his players. He won 30 games or more 3 times, won 20 or more 10 straight seasons No candidate being talked about comes close to this proven success.

    2. Montgomery has the street credibility to recruit big time talent to IU with his NBA experience and ties. Coach Montgomery will be able to talk to kids with NBA aspirations with a credibility that others will not. He already put together a hall of fame worthy career at a school much harder to recruit at than IU.

    3. His coaching style is entertaining and fun to watch. I know winning is what the fan base really craves, but there are a big group of us (me included) who likes the idea of playing man defense with a motion offense. Montgomery can provide that eye pleasing, more uptempo team oriented style, than the other candidates being mentioned.

    4. He can put Bloomington on the map internationally, with his ties to USA basketball. Montgomery has been on the staff or in the background for USA/Olympic basketball for many years, his high profile can bring some of that to Bloomington and to IU. His abilty to recruit internationally will also be a big help to IU, as the Hoosiers will have to try some unconventional methods early to make up for expected recruiting sanctions.

    5. Not to be overlooked at IU, Montgomery financially will require no buy out. For an institution still paying big bucks to coaches and athletic directors long since departed, the very fact that Montgomery will require less up front cash cannot be overlooked.

    6. This is a hire that completely can unite the fanbase, because his resume is so clearly superior that no one can argue it. 18 months ago, Mike DeCourcy of the Sporting News wrote an article titled "Montgomery perfect hire for any college: Former Stanford coach has great resume, recruiting record, no baggage." (www.nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/14823802/)
    Every Indiana sportswriter, columnist, announcer, fan, and player would just have to nod their head and say "Yes, this was a no brainer."

    7.Likely, Montgomery would bring with him a great name from Indiana Hoosier past glory as a likely heir apparent: Keith Smart. Smart went into coaching after his playing days were over, and was on Montgomery;s staff with the NBA's Golden State Warriors. I hear thru the grapevine that Smart is open to coming back to Bloomington, where he once starred for the Hoosiers, and hit the game winning shot for the 1987 National Champions. Smart's hiring as an assistant/coach in waiting would eliminate going through this task again in 6-10 years, and would prevent opponents from using Montgomery's age against him. (potentially Montgomery's one flaw is that he is 60 years old). However, I must point out that Lute Olsen is still a great coach and recruiter in his 70's at Arizona.....so I don't personally see age as an issue here.

    8. Because Montgomery is a new face to the midwest and to the big 10, his style in of itself would give us an advantage for a time, since it is different than most teams in the league currently run. IU would probably be one of the more fluid, eye pleasing, running teams in the conference, which to me is a lot better than watching a bunch of one on one play or a Wisconsin like grind it out game in the 50's. His newness and fresh approach also would help eliminate some of the stink and stench of the last few years, all the way back to the end of the Coach Knight era.

    9. He opens up new areas of the country to recruit from. Particularly, I believe Montgomery will be able to recruit to Indiana great players from the Rocky Mountains to California. This, along with reestablishing the recruiting ties to our own state's high school players, will give us an edge over our competitors. To help with recruiting the state of Indiana, I have it on reasonably good authority that Montgomery would strongly consider hiring a state high school coach who knows the state very well, along with being very open to keeping Coach MacCallum on staff, which I think is the right way to go about it.


    Ok, now I would like some help from you who are reading this. If you agree that I have successfully made my case, tell some of your friends and family about Montgomery too. Let's try and get a groundwell of support going for a low key guy who isn't the "hot" young name going around. Copy this and send it to your local paper or tv station, or copy it and send it to the IU search committee.....who from some of the administrations previous decisions clearly needs our input.


    Regardless of what happens, IU is clearly in a state of turmoil and confusion that will take a remarkable coach with tons of knowledge, contacts, and recruiting skills to overcome, and he will have to do it with high integrity and class. Only one man available has PROVEN for sure he can do it. Let's get Mike Montgomery as our new head basketball coach.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

    Montgomery's too old IMO. We need someone for the long haul. He is a good coach, but he has been out of the college game for a while. I'd much rather see Bennett or Miller.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

      Originally posted by Indy View Post
      Montgomery's too old IMO. We need someone for the long haul. He is a good coach, but he has been out of the college game for a while. I'd much rather see Bennett or Miller.
      He has been out of the college game but he hasn't been out of basketball. He coached in the NBA and now he does commentary/analysis for college hoops on Westwood One. He still knows the game. Plus bringing Smart with him would almost be like training his eventual successor. I think it can work and I appreciate tbird's post.

      However, not all IU fans will be as understanding and I've already seen some harsh reactions on other boards to the idea of Montgomery getting the job. But I think that would go away fairly quickly.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

        I can't see Keith Smart coming here if it is just for an assistant position. Head coach? Maybe. But NBA assistants get paid more and he's already been named to don nelson's successor.

        I tend to agree with Indy in wanting a younger coach -- not because it is a 'hot' name but because i tend to think it'd be best to get a guy that could grow with a program. IU is going to take several steps back now and we tried a quick fix guy like kelvin. so maybe now its time to get a younger guy so that in the 6-10 years tbird was talking about we might not have to look for a new coach like we probably would with a 66-70yo Montgomery.

        Also Terry Hutchens (IndyStar Hoosier Reporter) would probably not be a sportswriter that'd say "Yes, this was a no brainer." see #13...

        1. Bruce Pearl -- His name continues to come up and personally I think if Indiana came calling that he'd have to give it some consideration. At Tennessee, he's still at a football school and in many ways plays second fiddle to women's basketball, too. But this one would be a hard sell for me. I just think some of his past problems (especially when he was at Iowa) would make him not a desirable candidate especially when you're trying to get as far away from the troubles you've experienced over the last two seasons as possible. And if you thought Kelvin Sampson was hated at Illinois, watch what would happen when Bruce Pearl set foot in the other Assembly Hall.

        2. John Calipari -- Another guy who may have had a little baggage from UMass but a coach who I would think would be very interested in the IU job. Memphis is one thing but it's still a good school in a bad conference. Could he win a national championship at Memphis? Maybe. But Indiana is still Indiana. Again, the question here becomes whether this is a guy IU would really want to go after considering all of the current circumstances.

        3. Tom Izzo -- I've heard it from enough people now to believe that if Indiana came calling that Izzo would give the Hoosiers a long look. And here's my question: If you could get Izzo right now, wouldn't you do that in a heartbeat? He's a great x's and o's coach, he can recruit and he's a good face for the program. He would bring instant credibility back to Indiana University. My question is when push came to shove, though, could he pull the trigger and go from one Big Ten school to another? I find that hard to believe, but again I'm hearing it from enough people to think that he's interested at some level. And like I said, if Izzo is interested, I'd say go get him.

        4. Sean Miller -- If you want the good, young, up and coming coach, he's the guy. He has Xavier playing at a high level and I've heard nothing but good things about him. Again, if the good, young coach is what you're looking for, I would think Miller would be someone you'd have to take a long look at.

        5. Brad Brownell -- I would say he's the same category, but if I were to choose between the two I would take Miller. Brownell has done good things at Wilmington and now at Wright State but I'd feel more comfortable if he had one more bigger program on his resume.

        6. Steve Alford -- You know his name will come up and he's done a good job at New Mexico this year. I'm sure he'll say all the right things publically, but you have to know that this is a job he still covets and if Indiana came calling I can't imagine Alford looking the other way. Is the right guy for the job? I still think it's hard to say. I think he had a mixed bag at Iowa, and like I said he's done good things at New Mexico. There's no question that if you're looking for someone to re-unify the masses, that Alford would probably be a good choice. What I find interesting is that whenever you bring up his name in a forum such as this one, you have a ton of people saying hire him, and a ton of people saying absolutely not. That's the only thing that worries me a little bit.

        7. Randy Wittman -- If it's an Indiana guy you want, then Wittman would be a good choice but with Wittman you have a coach who has never recruited at the college level. For me, that would be too big of a hurdle to overcome.

        8. Scott Skiles -- Same problem. Good NBA experience, but nothing at this level.

        9. Scott Drew -- I think this is an interesting choice on many levels. He has ties to the state and he's shown he can bring a program back from a negative situation with what he has done at Baylor. If you want a high character guy to lead this program, I think he would be an excellent choice.

        10. Anthony Grant -- Another up and coming guy but in my opinion someone like Sean Miller would still be a better selection.

        11. Dan Dakich -- I like Dan but I'm just not sure he has the resume that Indiana is looking for here. Now, if the Hoosiers make a long run in the NCAA Tournament I think they'll have to give him a long look. What I would like to see is for the guy who gets the job to bring someone like Dakich back and have him on the IU staff. I just think Dakich needs to be involved at some level with the Hoosiers.

        12. Ray McCallum -- If they put Dakich in as the interim coach over McCallum, I can't imagine them hiring Ray as the next permanent head coach. Again, depending on who the next coach turns out to be, McCallum is another guy who would be good to have on your staff. Not to mention the fact that at some point his son will be looking for a college at which to play.

        13. Mike Montgomery -- I don't see it. How old is he? 60. And is he really the guy you want to take this program into the future?


        14. Rick Pitino -- Never say never. He's had Kentucky and Louisville. Why not complete the trifecta with the Hoosiers?

        15. Kevin Stallings -- The thing that is most difficult for me to get past is whether IU would hire a guy who has Purdue ties? They did it with Sharon Versyp and look how well that turned out. I think he's a pretty good coach but I just don't know if he's hireable because of the Purdue thing.

        16. Billy Donovan -- When you see the facilities they have, and you look at the climate you're living in and remember that just last year he turned down an solid NBA offer to say with the Gators, I don't think it would happen. But I think his name is worth throwing out there.

        17. Tom Crean -- Another name that always comes up. I haven't heard it as much this time as I did after Davis resigned. Here's one for you though. If Izzo did come to IU, one would think the dominos would begin falling with Crean heading to Michigan State.

        18. Dane Fife -- No. But someone always seems to bring up his name. Dane needs a couple of more stops before his name is mentioned in IU circles.

        19. Ron Hunter -- No. He's done good things at IUPUI but I don't think you make the jump from the Jags to the Hoosiers.

        20. Thad Matta -- No. I think he's happy where he's at.

        21. Bob Knight -- Let's don't go there. I don't think either party is willing to go down that road just yet.

        22. Pat Knight -- No. Guilt by association, and another guy, like Fife, who I think would need a lot of seasoning before he would be ready to coach the Hoosiers.

        23. Mark Few -- Another guy who was a hot name two years ago but seems to have faded this time around. I just think if he wasn't interested then, he won't be interested now.

        24. Tony Bennett -- I think he's a fine young coach, but I wonder if the problems his sister had when she was the IU women's coach and the way she was let go, would make it difficult for her bro to seriously look at Indiana.

        25. Rick Majerus -- He's done good things at Saint Louis but I doubt if his name will come up in the conversation for the IU job. I've been wrong before but I don't see this one as a strong possibility.


        http://blogs.indystar.com/hoosiersin...s_talk_co.html
        Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 03-30-2008, 01:26 AM.
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

          Originally posted by Indy View Post
          Montgomery's too old IMO. We need someone for the long haul. He is a good coach, but he has been out of the college game for a while. I'd much rather see Bennett or Miller.

          In a country where a man in his 70's in John McCain may be elected to the Presidency of the United States, I see no reason why a man who is 60 can't be a great basketball coach for Indiana University.

          As for Hutchens, he knows my opinion on this matter already I believe.

          Tbird

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

            Because head coach at Indiana University is a much more important job than president of the United States.
            However, with the Presidency you know they will only be there for 4-8 years. Recruits need to know there coach will be there for a long time.

            I just think we need a young guy who will bring new life to the program. I think Bennett or Miller can do that. What does hiring a guy like Montgomery say? To me it says that IU has taken a long, hard fall from grace. We need someone to bring stability and will be here for the long haul. We don't need someone who is going to coach for 4-5 years and then retire. Its just not a rational decision for IU basketball at this point. We need someone who can lead this team for a minimum of 10-15 years.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

              The Hoosier Scoop is reporting Bennett has turned down IU.
              Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
                The Hoosier Scoop is reporting Bennett has turned down IU.
                Just yesterday Bennett denied us ever speaking to him. I'm not believing much of anything I read online right now. I don't think anyone really knows what is going on.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                  Originally posted by obnoxiousmodesty View Post
                  The Hoosier Scoop is reporting Bennett has turned down IU.
                  ESPN is reporting it as well.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...10/1004/SPORTS

                    star also reporting the same
                    "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                      I'd also say this...according to Hutch on IndyStar Bennett still claims he was never offered the job, but that he said hes not interested in pursuing it. To me that says that Bennett was told that he is the backup plan to someone else right now.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                        Originally posted by Indy View Post
                        I'd also say this...according to Hutch on IndyStar Bennett still claims he was never offered the job, but that he said hes not interested in pursuing it. To me that says that Bennett was told that he is the backup plan to someone else right now.


                        Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with him having a good team returning next year, or how bad Greenspan jobbed his sister.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                          If they would have hired Alford, IU would have been spared all of this drama and would be well on their way to being an elite basketball program once again.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                            Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                            If they would have hired Alford, IU would have been spared all of this drama and would be well on their way to being an elite basketball program once again.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: Making the case for Mike Montgomery for next IU basketball coach

                              Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post

                              Yeah, and where did Davis and Sampson get us? That's right, in the deep do do.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X